“THANKS TO STATE DEPARTMENT CABLES, A U.S. TORTURE VICTIM WON A RARE $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT AGAINST UAE RULING FAMILY” – THE CONDITION: SILENCE IN THE PRESS.July 13, 2017 Washington, D.C. [First Published In ‘The Intercept News’]

“Thanks to State Department Cables, a U.S. Torture Victim Won a Rare $10 Million Settlement against UAE ruling family” – The condition: Silence in the Press.

[Nearly three decades after he was tortured by high-ranking officials in the United Arab Emirates, Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen secured a $10 million settlement against the top three members of the country’s ruling family. As a condition of his settlement, Hassen is not allowed to speak about the case; documents confirming the secret agreement was obtained by the Intercept through a “hacker,” or someone who had access to UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba's hotmail account. Hassen, who was held for two years captive in Abu Dhabi prison from at least 1984, brought the suit only in 2009 the Intercept reports].

“THANKS TO STATE DEPARTMENT CABLES, A U.S. TORTURE VICTIM WON A RARE $10 MILLION SETTLEMENT AGAINST UAE RULING FAMILY”[By ‘Ryan Grim’ and ‘Alex Emmons’]

An American citizen won a rare $10 million torture settlement against three top members of the ruling family in the United Arab Emirates, after State Department cables proved the man had indeed been detained as he had claimed.

The confidential and previously unreported settlement was paid out in May 2013, according to documents extracted from the hotmail account of UAE Ambassador to the U.S. Yousef Al Otaiba. The documents were provided to The Intercept either by a hacker or someone who had access to his account.

Settlements for torture victims are extraordinarily rare, making the payout to Los Angeles resident Khaled Hassen that much more surprising.

Hassen’s case was brought in federal court in L.A. against three of the most powerful figures in the Gulf — the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed al Nahyan, known in Washington as MBZ, a man particularly close to Otaiba; the emir of the UAE, Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed al Nahyan; and General Saeed Hilal Abdullah al Darmaki.

The case had more than geopolitical hurdles to overcome: it was seeking justice from an abduction all the way back in January of 1984, when Hassen was working for a member of the royal family consulting on weapons contracting. Competition for contracts in the arms-trade industry can often turn violent, as it did in Hassen’s case. At the time, the three defendants were also in the arms trading business, and were rivals of Hassen’s boss as they all fought to rise through the ranks of the UAE power structure.

MBZ personally witnessed some of Hassen’s torture, Hassen claimed.

Hassen, in his suit, claims he was held in a windowless 7 by 10 foot cell until November 1985, beaten, blindfolded for days at a time, with the air conditioner cut off in the summers, causing the temperature to rise to excruciating levels. His feet and legs, he said, were bound together and he was hung upside down for long periods of time; he was fed foul tasting liquids that brought on “severe pain and hallucinations.” All the while, the State Department was working feverishly to locate and visit with him, the cables indicate.

The suit was filed in February 2009, just weeks after the Obama administration took office. In November, the judge warned that the case was going to be dismissed for lack of action, as the defendants, who were in the UAE, had not been served. So Hassen’s attorneys served Otaiba instead, and the judge accepted it.

To overcome the denials of the UAE government, Hassen’s lawyers cited State Department cables that were released in 2006, showing U.S. embassy officials trying to locate Hassan and secure his release. “Special state security arm which claims even it has no jurisdiction over Al-Hassan [sic] admits latter does remain detained in Abu Dhabi under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government…” one cable from July 1984 reads.

One of the UAE’s U.S.-based lawyers, Hamilton Loeb, noted in one email to Otaiba on July 2, 2010, that Hassen had produced nine State Department cables from 1984-1985 “that are somewhat ugly.” In them US embassy reports that after initial denials, UAE authorities confirmed Hassen was being held by a ‘special state security arm…under personal supervision of ‘highest levels’ of government.”

Loeb, who didn’t respond to a request for comment, told Otaiba that the cables made it impossible for the UAE to deny his imprisonment, and gave the case a credibility that they needed to take seriously, especially given the geopolitical implications.

Most cases that old don’t get very far — the statute of limitations on the U.S.’s Torture Victim Protections Act is 10 years — but Hassen argued that the power the men wielded made it reasonable for him to wait. He finally decided to go forward, he reasoned, because the UAE had decided it wanted to be on good terms with the US — a relationship that might be soured if an American citizen were murdered on American soil in retribution for a lawsuit.

Plaintiffs are typically required to exhaust all legal options in the home state of the defendants before bringing suit in the U.S., but Hassen argued that the courts in the UAE have no independence, and are controlled by the very people he is suing.

Most importantly, he argued, the release of the cables made it possible for him to prove his case.

The judge let it go forward.

Otaiba and the country’s foreign minister worked hard behind the scenes to shield the ruling family from liability, with limited success. U.S. law creates a process to remove a sitting head of state from a lawsuit for diplomatic purposes, and Otaiba successfully lobbied the State Department to request the emir be struck from the case. But Clinton declined to do the same favor for MBZ or al Darmaki.

On January 9, 2011, Minister of Foreign Affairs Abdullah bin Zayed Al Nahyan thanked Clinton and the Department of Justice for granting the emir immunity, but pressed the case of MBZ. As a sign of how seriously the Emirates were taking the case, bin Zayed relayed to Clinton that he wanted to add it to the agenda of her upcoming trip to the Gulf.

Otaiba prepared talking points with a U.S. legal team, according to the emails, relying on a precedent set by Israel, a country that the UAE does not officially recognize, but with which they work in concert on regional issues in Washington. “We held off asserting ‘official acts’ in the initial round, in the belief that the judge would dismiss all claims on other grounds and thereby not require the UAE involve itself further in eliminating the lawsuit. The judge to whom the case was assigned, however, is brand-new on the bench and favorably disposed to claimants like Hassen. Accordingly, the UAE now needs to obtain State intervention to assert official acts immunity. If State does so, it is virtually automatic that the judge will dismiss the claims,” the talking points read.

“This is the same immunity that, for example, the Israelis used successfully to obtain State’s intervention in the Gaza apartment shelling case against Avi Dichter.”

The reasoning didn’t work, and MBZ remained on the case. When she was replaced by John Kerry as secretary of state, Otaiba pushed him as well.

On March 25, 2013, Kerry sent bin Zayed a letter that began: “Your Highness: It was a pleasure seeing you in Abu Dhabi on March 4, and I thank you for your letter regarding the case of Hassen v. Sheikh Khalifa bin Zayed Al Nayhan et al.”

It read in full:

Attorneys from the Department of State’s Office of Legal Adviser recently met with Mr. Hamilton Loeb, one of Sheikh Mohammed’s attorneys, and discussed with him your request that the United States file a suggestion of immunity on behalf of Sheikh Mohammed. The Department will continue to monitor this case closely and continue our communications with Mr. Loeb concerning developments in the litigation.

Kerry, those who worked with him say, always enjoyed his time in the Gulf region meeting with leaders there — the fabulously expensive bottles of wine that are routinely uncorked when the ruling elite dine agree with Kerry’s elite sensibilities. But the wine wasn’t enough to buy MBZ’s way off the Hassen case, and Kerry’s diplomatic brush off seems to have sent UAE leaders scrambling toward a settlement.

By May 2, 2013, just a few weeks after Kerry’s rejection, the deal had been signed and counter-signed, and wiring instructions for a $10 million payout were circulated by Otaiba. The condition: silence in the press.

“The Embassy is not commenting on the emails,” said the Harbour Group’s Richard Mintz an Otaiba representative. The Intercept reached out to the law firm who represented Hassen and a woman there said the firm couldn’t comment on the case and immediately hung up.

In April 2013, the same years as Hassen’s settlement, the UAE government imprisoned Shez Cassim, a US citizen from Minnesota, for producing a satirical video about Dubai youth culture, the beginning of a horrifying odyssey through the country’s prison system. Soon, Otaiba would be fielding calls and emails from the Minnesota congressional delegation on the detention of Cassim, who became a cause celeb for comedians in the U.S., including Will Ferrell and others at Funny Or Die.

“I continue to be shocked that he is still in jail,” Sen. Amy Klubuchar (D-Minn.) wrote in one email to Otaiba on Christmas Day 2013. “I believe your country has reached a place on the world stage where these things matter even if they were acceptable in the past. That is the case I hope you can make.”

Otaiba told Klobuchar he would continue to lobby MBZ — fresh off the $10 million settlement for allegedly overseeing the torture of Hassen — to release Cassim. “I assure you that’s precisely the case I am making and it does have merit,” he assured her. He was released the next month.

In May 2014, Otaiba authorized the release of that year’s payment to Hassen after a search of the media turned up no articles on Hassen’s case.

* Litigating Plaintiff’s claim in California would be inefficient and unfair for Defendants, who reside in the UAE and hold extremely high governmental positions which require their presence and attention. Therefore, Plaintiff’s claims should be dismissed because this District is a seriously inconvenient forum for this lawsuit.

* Sheikh Mohamed and Sheikh Khalifa Are Absolutely Immune Under the Head-of-State Immunity Doctrine Regardless of whether general or specific jurisdiction exists, this Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Sheikh Mohammed and Sheikh Khalifa under any circumstances because they are heads of state recognized by the U.S. Government, and thus “absolutely immune from personal jurisdiction in United States courts”. …
Read full text: ‘Failed Arguments of the Defendants – Motion to Dismiss Case’

MULTI BILLION $USD WORTH ‘JUDGMENT-DEBTS’ OF UAE: – THE ‘UAE JUDGMENT DEBTS’ AGAINST THE ‘ABU DHABI EXECUTIVE BRANCH’ ARE GUARANTEED FIVE TIMES MORE VALUE ON YOUR INVESTMENT EVEN IF THE DEBTORS SETTLE IT WITHIN THE FIRST WEEK OF YOUR JOINING!READ FULL TEXT: “SALE BROCHURE”!

The Judgment Creditor is an Indian National. Despite the social and other difficulties, the Judgment Creditor established a career as Electro-Mechanical Engineer. He had valuable experience in the said field by working in projects of International Repute like Voltas and Lufthansa in Mumbai, India.

In the prime of his youth, when aged 22, he reached Abu Dhabi, the capital of the UAE in 1979. UAE at that time was a fast developing country. He had been an active participant in its developmental activities. Due to tireless efforts and commitment to his profession, he could establish and develop three major business establishments in Engineering, Trading and General Contracting in Abu Dhabi that valued at about a hundred million U.S. Dollars by 1995.

2) BEGINNING OF HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION.

The Judgment Creditor, on behalf of his principal company, the ‘Premier General Contracting Establishment’, entered into a lease and build-out agreement with Hassan Saeed Hassan, a local Emirati, in September 1995, regarding a nine storied building.

With the rapid progress of the proposed project, Hassan Saeed grew greedy, and conspired to have the lease obligation set at naught with a view to make enormous gains. the Judgment Creditor could not and did not yield to the unjustified demands of Mr. Hassan Saeed, as the Judgment Creditor had already entered into commitments with others on the basis of the planned business deal.

3) FIRST APPROACH TO THE COURT OF LAW.

When Hassan Saeed attempted to break the provisions in the lease agreement, and even sold some of the flats to others violating the terms and conditions of the contract, the Judgment Creditor, as a law abiding citizen, sought legal advice and instituted a civil suit in the Abu Dhabi Court.

Hassan Saeed was, however, reacting in a most unreasonable and arbitrary manner. He threatened the Judgment Creditor with dire consequences if he failed to withdraw the Civil Suit.

The Court was, prima facie, satisfied by the contentions of the Judgment Creditor, and passed an interim order protecting his rights. There was a direction to deposit the contracted value in the Treasury. Hassan Saeed was informed about the direction and the possible serious consequences in the event of his illegal action and violation of the Court order were indicated.

4) THE GRUESOME ACTS OF VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The stand taken by the Judgment Creditor was lawful, reasonable, and had the support of the Court’s interim order. ‘But in total negation of the Judicial Order of Abu Dhabi Civil Court, Hassan Saeed continued threatening the Judgment Creditor and planned and executed violent and reckless revenge, defying all legal provisions and principles of fair-play. Certain corrupt police officials colluded with him. In consequence thereof, the Judgment Creditor had to undergo extremes of inhuman and deadly tortures from Abu Dhabi Police which no human being could withstand. However, he was fortunate to be spared from death.

The policeman enquired as to the original documents of the contract which the Judgment Creditor refused to disclose. On this, the entire office was ransacked, drawers opened by force and files thrown out. Thereupon, the policeman forcibly broke open the office locker with the iron rod in his hand and looted US$.4m worth money and valuables and the Judgment Creditor was severely beaten in cold blood and his fingers were smashed with iron rod.

At this juncture, the younger brother of the Judgment Creditor arrived at the office with lunch. As he arrived the Judgment Creditor asked him to close the door and call the police. By then, the policeman in plain clothes managed to get out of the office with the stolen money and valuables; however, Mr.Hassan Saeed was unable to leave.

It was noticed by the Judgment Creditor that the policeman in civil dress had returned and was shouting and striking on the door with the heavy iron rod of one meter length he held in his hand. By then an inquisitive crowd had gathered around the office of the Judgment Creditor. The policeman was shouting and warning anyone from coming near to him and was saying rather rudely “Pakistani, Bengali, Indian all are thieves and procurers”.

After some time, the police patrol team arrived at the spot as per the request made by the Judgment Creditor. But instead of protecting him from the trespassers, they joined hands with the trespassers, acted like mere savages, and the victims (the Judgment Creditor and his brother) were shackled, brutally tortured and were literally dragged out of the office through the street to the police vehicle in the presence of known friends and bystanders and taken to an underground detention centre. They were abused and assaulted there again and the Judgment Creditor fell unconscious. Eventually they were taken to hospital emergency.

5) ARBITRARY ARREST AND DETENTION – A VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The wanton acts of infraction of damage to the Judgment Creditor, his office and equipment were temporarily halted only when, pursuant to a telephone call of the Judgment Creditor’s brother, a police team arrived at the scene. In the mean time, a large crowd had gathered at the scene, and there were very many respectable persons from different parts of the world who could witness the incident.

Unfortunately, the police team acted in accordance with the dictates of Hassan Saeed, due to extraneous considerations and undue influence, money and otherwise. Hassan Saeed manipulated, with the connivance of police, the arrest and detention of the Judgment Creditor.

Thus the business deal bona fide entered into, and scrupulously adhered to by the Judgment Creditor, led to very serious deprivation of his liberty, which consisted of a series of violations of Human Rights such as a forcible destruction of his property with the connivance of corrupt police officials, illegal arrest, torture of the worst order leading to his unconscious condition, perilously near death, incarceration in prison, and other physical and mental sufferings. It took about six months for the Judgment Creditor being brought before a Court of law of Abu Dhabi, UAE.

6) A CONTENTION ABOUT HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION ARISING FROM THE ARREST.

It is respectfully submitted that this default in not producing the accused promptly before a competent judicial authority, by itself is a serious violation of the rights guaranteed to a victim under the fundamental principles of international law. The Judgment Creditor was not produced before a Court, i.e. within a day, or some of the weeks. It took a long period of six months thereafter, for the Judgment Creditor to have his first appearance in the Court.

He was held incommunicado for about a month in different detention centres, often in solitary confinement, and finally taken to the central prison. During this long spell of illegal detention, he was treated in the most cruel manner, subjected to brutal torture and blackmail, causing him irreparable mental and physical injuries. The Judgment Creditor was exposed to such a gross violation of Human Rights which the competent authority could take serious notice of. Each day of such illegal incarceration is to be reckoned while devising the remedial measures.
——————————————————————————————————–
Article 9 (3) is particularly relevant and read:

& the UAE had breached Articles 9 of the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) that condemns arbitrary arrest: ‘No one shall be subjected to arbitrary arrest, detention or exile. [Link: Universal Declaration of Human Rights]
——————————————————————————————————–
7) THE LEGAL COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE, ABU DHABI, UAE.

The Human Rights Violations, the assault, arbitrary detention etc as narrated above were scrutinized by the Court. The Court had the opportunity to have evidence before it from witnesses belonging to different nationalities.

The witnesses of foreign nationals (other than Indian) were in a position to give evidences, despite the fear of a possible harassment by Abu Dhabi Police and public prosecution. This ensured the independent quality of the evidence.

The arrest and detention were against the basic principles of law. The arrogant policemen of Abu Dhabi, however, committed the atrocities in full view of the public. This proved to be their undoing.

8) THE REACTION OF THE COURT.

The Court expressed its shock while noticing that a victim who sought for police help from trespassers was arrested and detained by the police!

9) THE JUDGMENT AND FINDINGS OF THE COURT.

The Judgment of the ‘Legal Court of First Instance’ was pronounced on 10-04-1996.

The Judgment Creditor and his brother who were charged with offences by the Abu Dhabi Police, were acquitted. The Court directed the Authorities, to prosecute the policeman involved in the illegal activities. It was found that Hassan Saeed was guilty of deception and assault. The Court criticized the Public Prosecution for concealing the assault of the policeman on the Judgment Creditor, and its tampering of evidence. Some of the material findings of the Court are:-

i) The policeman and Hassan Saeed had committed the offences of trespass and assault.

ii) The Judgment Creditor had only exercised his legal right, and he and his brother were attacked by the policeman and Hassan Saeed by taking the law into their hand.

iii) The police, which was expected to help the victims, unjustifiably protected the trespassers who were the law breakers.

iv) The Criminal Court observed that, the Interim Judgment of the Abu Dhabi Civil Court, ruled that the Judgment Creditor was the really aggrieved person and had deserved help.

v) The conduct of the police clearly proved the malicious motives in initiating the criminal complaint against the Judgment Creditor.

vi) Ultimately, the Court found that the policeman indulged in the illegal criminal act due to his greed, and that the police framed false charges against the Judgment Creditor to save their face.

10) DIRECTIONS OF COURT – AN ENQUIRY INTO THE CONDUCT OF POLICE.

The Court took a serious view of the entire events. It ordered an enquiry into the conduct of the police. The records were forwarded to the Public Prosecution for facilitating the investigation.

The order of the Court, regrettably enough, was ignored by the UAE authority. No investigation was conducted by the prosecution. The irresistible inference is about an active Police-partisanship to help the law-breakers, who wanted to make wrongful gains, utilizing their influence, and access to the ruling power.

The State has to bear the responsibility for such illegal actions indulged in by servants and officers and for helping anti-social elements with the full connivance of its policemen and other officials.

11) SERIOUS VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE CHARTER OF THE U.N.

The Judgment Creditor was NOT released from prison in spite of his acquittal by the Criminal Court of First Instance, in total violation of the order of a judicial authority.

At the same time, there was an alleged omission to proceed against the perpetrators of the crime, in spite of the directions of a judicial authority. This too is a serious violation of Human Rights guaranteed by the law, both the domestic law and the charter of United Nations.

12) CONTINUATION OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE APEX COURT.

Ultimately, the prosecution filed an appeal in the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi. The case was posted for hearing on 18-04-1996.

13) APEX COURT ORDER GRANTING BAIL TO THE ‘JUDGMENT CREDITOR’.

The Court granted bail to the Judgment Creditor on the day the prosecution filing an appeal. However, despite the bail and sureties the Judgment Creditor was not released from the prison.

14) INTERVENING EVENTS CONFIRMING VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS AND ADMISSION OF POLICE ABOUT SUCH VIOLATIONS.

In the meantime, policeman Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir filed a declaration dated 17-03-1996, attested by a Notary, where-under he dropped the contentions in his complaint. Hassan Saeed followed the suit and admitted his guilt. The two other policemen submitted that they were misguided by Ahmed Abdulla Abdul Kadir in committing arrest and torture against the Judgment Creditor with a view to extort money.

The Hon’ble Supreme Court advised the Judgment Creditor to sue against the perpetrators of the crime for damages and malicious actions.

The final Judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on 19-05-1996. The Hon’ble Supreme Court declared that the Judgment Creditor was totally innocent of the charges. The case hoisted against the Judgment Creditor was wholly false, baseless and fabricated by the police for personal gains. The Court observed further that all the pieces of evidence proved propriety in the acts and conduct of the Judgment Creditor.

The conduct of the Prosecutor was strongly condemned. Referring to the principles of Islamic Law, the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi observed that the law had honoured the man who protected his freedom, his honour, his property and his soul. A person dying while protecting that freedom is considered a ‘martyr’.

With regard to the facts of the case, Supreme Court observed that it was proved that the policemen and other officials sought to arrest the Judgment Creditor without any right and that they curtailed his freedom.

16) UAE GOVERNMENT CONTINUED VIOLATION OF COURT ORDERS AND PERPETRATED VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The defiant Executive, however, continued the violation of Human Rights. Despite the acquittal by the Trial Court, the grant of bail by the Supreme Court and dropping the charges by his complainant, and finally, the Supreme Court’s declaration precisely in line with the Lower Courts that the Judgment Creditor was totally innocent of the charges, the ongoing arbitrary detention of Judgment Creditor and his brother continued indefinitely.

17) CONTENTION AGAINST THE NON ENFORCEMENT OF UAE COURT’S DECISIONS.

The eminent Jurists Panel of Apex Court cross-examined all aspects of the case and found that the accused was innocent; rather ‘a martyr’. This judgment of the very country in which the police and the Executive Officers perpetrated violation of Human Rights against the Judgment Creditor, held that the Police was answerable for their criminal action.

The ‘Debtor’, the Government of Abu Dhabi, UAE, is responsible for such a grave violation of Human Rights and reparation is legitimately to be reckoned for every day of the deprivation of liberty and violation of Human Rights by the officers and servants of the UAE.

18) AGGRAVATED VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS BY [FRAUD] DEPORTATION RESULTING IN LOSS OF HIS DIGNITY, RESPECT AND ENTIRE PROPERTY.

Yet another gross violation of Human Rights was the dare devil action of the Executive of deporting the Judgment Creditor from the country as if the Judgment Creditor was convicted for a crime by the ‘Court of Law’, ignoring the concurrent judicial declaration of the Courts in UAE, the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court. While so deporting the Judgment Creditor, the Executive Branch was well aware that ‘the reason shown in the deportation order was against the truth.

The deportation order was prepared with the false and fabricated statement, with an intention to save face and simultaneously to avoid paying any reparations. The fraud committed by the Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi has caused grave injury to the Judgment Creditor, that has left him in the worst position than he was in before the fraud.

The U.S. Supreme Court has quoted that, “There can be no doubt that the continuation of a malicious prosecution beyond the initial act of instigation may inflict additional damage upon the victim”.

The competent authority could be justified to pass further orders appropriately dealing with the concerned officers and compensating the Judgment Creditor by awarding compensation which will take in the value of his businesses, freedom or dignity and the assets, lost by him due to the criminal actions of the administration and other officials of the UAE, along with other heads of damages permissible under law.
——————————————————————————————————–
The U.S. Supreme Court has quoted that, “There can be no doubt that the continuation of a malicious prosecution beyond the initial act of instigation may inflict additional damage upon the victim”; [Ray Wong v. Earle C. Anthony, Inc. (1926) 199 Cal. 15 [247 P. 894]. ‘The term ‘prosecution’ is sufficiently comprehensive to include every step in an action from its commencement to its final determination…’ (Lujan v. Gordon, 70 Cal.App.3d 260.)
——————————————————————————————————–
19) CONTENTIONS REGARDING THE CONDUCT OF UAE GOVERNMENT.

It may be recalled that the UAE government was blamed of having been instrumental in defrauding or cheating the Judgment Creditor to avoid honoring its moral obligations and assigned responsibilities. The Judgment Creditor was subjected to total deprivation of his liberty, his business establishments, loss of his accumulated savings and properties, and a great suffering in his dignity as a human individual. Each deprivation by itself justifies the strongest action by the competent authority, in the light of the solid evidence placed before it.

Deprivation of the entire property and life savings constitute a grave violation of Human Rights and the very Right to Life. There are multiple infractions of Human Rights, which constitute a more serious case calling for strongest action on the part of the competent authority. The right to livelihood cannot be subjected to individual fancies of the person in authority.

20) ATTRIBUTION OF CONDUCT TO THE STATE.

The ‘Debtor, the Government of Abu Dhabi, UAE‘ will stand as the fiscally responsible party until the Court Judgment is satisfied. His responsibility to do so will pass on to his successor-in-office; the successor regime is obliged to compensate the victim of state wrongs.

Under international law, the state is responsible for all actions or omissions of its officials and organs. This is the function of the basic rules of international law concerning the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts and the legal consequences which flow therefrom. The ‘successor governments’ also remain bound by the acts incurred by the ‘predecessor governments’.

A three-judge Supreme Court bench in India has observed recently that Decree Holders must enjoy the fruits of the decree obtained by them in an expeditious manner – “It is necessary to remember that success in a suit means nothing to a party unless he gets the relief”. [Reference to the links below].
——————————————————————————————————–
‘HERE WE TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT’S THE LEGAL POINTS OF INTEREST’:

* The Constitution of the UAE and the ‘Arab Charter on Human Rights’ envisages many protective measures under the law. The Article 26, of the Constitution of the UAE it reads:

‘Personal liberty is guaranteed to all citizens. No person may be arrested, searched, detained or imprisoned except in accordance with the provisions of law. No person shall be subjected to torture or to degrading treatment’.

But what the UAE government practice is exactly the opposite of what they preach; making the UAE Constitution itself becomes a solemn mockery!

The Judgment Creditor was admitted in ‘Hinduja hospital’ Mumbai, by the very next day of his release from UAE Prison. There he was treated by different doctors at different specialties including psychiatrists. The Judgment Creditor had a greater degree of psychological stress and physical harm as a consequence of brutal methods used by the Abu Dhabi police under detention. He was advised Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) treatments, Diabetic treatments etc., due to the Pancreas disorder symptoms.

22) PURSUIT OF LEGAL REMEDIES IN INDIA.

The Judgment Creditor fought for justice by invoking all legal flora, including the High Court of Delhi and the Supreme Court of India. The various legal proceedings, costly and time-consuming, are chronicled in [Links] Part A & Part B of the Annexures. They cover events commencing from filing the Writ Petition before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in 1996. The Supreme Court found merit in the case suggested that the Delhi High Court could be approached in the matter under Article 226.

There was continuous and contumacious delay on the part of the Government of India. No order was passed as directed by the Delhi High Court. This necessitated the Judgment Creditor to approach the Delhi High Court again in 2003. There was an interim order on 28-1-2004 that the Government should intimate the Court of the steps taken to protect the rights of the Judgment Creditor.

The second Judgment of Delhi High Court was rendered on 19-9-2007. It recorded a letter of the Ministry of External Affairs dated 29-7-1998 reading:-

The Government of India, did not take any action on the order of Delhi High Court, as well as repeated representations and communications from the Judgment Creditor, despite the fact that the most cruel violation of Human Rights and deprivation of freedom or property of the Judgment Creditor had been repeatedly established by judicial verdicts in a foreign country.

23) FURTHER REPRESENTATIONS FOR DIPLOMATIC ACTION BASED ON VIENNA CONVENTIONS.

And also under the Article (3)(b) in the ‘Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations (VCDR) – Done at Vienna on 18 April 1961′; the functions of a diplomatic mission under VCDR consist in: (b) Protecting in the receiving State the interests of the sending State and of its nationals, within the limits permitted by international law.

24) INDIA HAD BREACHED ITS OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE INTERNATIONAL CONVENTIONS.

The government of India is in clear breach of its international obligations under the Article (5)(e) Consular Functions of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) 1963’ – Done at Vienna, Austria on 24 April 1963.

The victim here a citizen of India who has been suffering all through ever since he was a victim of a violent extortion racket in Abu Dhabi police that targeted him. he was illegally arrested, brutally tortured, arbitrarily imprisoned and being held incommunicado and deported illegally from the UAE without any asset whatsoever to India.

The Dignity and Rights of the ‘Judgment Creditor’ was not restored by the Executive authority of Abu Dhabi, as directed by both the Courts, the Court of First Instance and the Supreme Court, Abu Dhabi, UAE.

The Government of India has not been able to get justice for the Judgment Creditor so far, except a cruel and deliberate betrayal over the past two decades”. Virtually, the Judgment Creditor was transferred from one cage to another, his freedom or dignity and his professional life continues to be denied indefinitely despite his running from pillar to post, to restore his dignity and respect and to recover his assets.

The Articles on Diplomatic Protection: In May 2006, the International Law Commission (ILC) has adopted the Articles on Diplomatic Protection, These articles largely codify existing customary international law on the protection of nationals abroad by means of diplomatic protection. [Link: Articles on Diplomatic Protection]

Indian expatriates are exposed to the extreme degree of Human Rights Violations in the Arab Gulf. [Link: India's National Shame!]——————————————————————————————————-

25) FURTHER FACETS OF VIOLATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS.

The brutal torture of the Judgment Creditor at the Abu Dhabi prisons have caused him irreparable and serious physical ailments. As a result, at his advanced age, he is suffering now great strain, physically and mentally. the Judgment Creditor’s two children and wife who are also subjected to great sufferings as a result of the unjust deprivation of his entire property and their sustenance and facilities of life. The unabated agonies of the Judgment Creditor continues for over two decades. the Judgment Creditor’s younger brother who suffered great physical pain and mental anguish has also taken its toll on his life.

26) THE UN WORKING GROUP ON ARBITRARY DETENTION (UNWGAD).

In February 2016, the UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) announced its decision finding that the detention of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange is unlawful. The United Nations Working Group has ordered that the Swedish and British authorities to end Mr. Assange’s deprivation of liberty, respect his physical integrity and freedom of movement, and afford him the right to compensation.

The UN Working Group on Arbitrary Detention (UNWGAD) had given inspiration to the suffering individuals in various parts of the world by its glorious Judgment in Assange’s case. A laudable principle was also declared. Various forms of deprivation of liberty “constitute a form of arbitrary detention”. [Link: The Judgment in Assange’s case]

An illustrative precedent of UN Working Group in meting out justice to a person whose Human Rights had been violated are grave criminal acts and serious violation of Human Rights justifying the intervention of the UN Working Group.

Assange lost in all legal proceedings including the appeal to the highest Court in United Kingdom. The UN Working Group, however, meted out justice to the deserving individuals, when fact established beyond doubts the violation of Human Rights.

27) CONCLUSION.

In the case of the Judgment Creditor, there has been integrated and connected activities on the part of the policemen and the officials of Abu Dhabi, UAE and the UAE Government itself in arresting without justifiable reasons; malicious and deliberate misuse of power, subjecting him to torture, violating the provisions of production of an accused in a Court of Law, prolonged arbitrary detention, disregarding the verdict of the judiciary on the innocence of the victim, and violating the basic principles of a civilized Government of honouring verdict of the judiciary, Executive abiding by such verdict.

The Legal Court of First Instance of Abu Dhabi was declared that the conduct of the policemen clearly proved the malicious motives in initiating a criminal complaint against the Judgment Creditor. However, an order of enquiry passed by the Legal Court [Link] against the conduct of the Policemen was ignored by the UAE authority. The conduct of the Prosecutor too was condemned.

The relevant portion of the Final Judgement [Link] of the Supreme Court of Abu Dhabi, praising the qualities of the Judgment Creditor and condemning the malicious actions of his ‘debtors’ is reproduced here for ready reference:-

“All the pieces of evidence proved propriety in the acts and conduct of the Judgment Creditor. With regard to the facts of the case, the Supreme Court observed that the law had honoured the man who protected his freedom, his honour, his property and his soul. A person dying while protecting that freedom is considered a martyr. And it was proved in this case that the policemen and other officials sought to arrest the ‘Judgment Creditor’ without any right and that they curtailed his freedom”.

The illegal deportation of the Judgment Creditor by the Executive of Abu Dhabi, UAE, on fraudulent grounds has multiplied the devastating effects on the victim, such as:-

His dignity and freedom remained lost arbitrarily as he was deported on a fraudulent order [Link] issued by UAE Administration purposefully in order to avoid honouring its obligations. His entire assets and properties remained lost; as he was denied access to his three major business establishments [Link] and assets in Abu Dhabi, UAE, that caused Multi-billion Dollars worth of damages;

His dignity, respect and all his assets remains lost even after two decades of passing the Historic Judgments of the Highest Court of Abu Dhabi, due to non-enforcement of Judgments. The anguish resultant from the deprivation of his freedom, dignity and property, as such the huge business assets, earned only through his untiring personal efforts causes mental depression which will virtually make the life only a vegetable existence.

MISSION STATEMENT

Safeguard the Rule of Law by ensuring Justice, Freedom and Peace in society.

The observation of ‘Hillary Clinton’ on strength and money as essentials linked with Human Rights could be usefully extracted. They read: “Strength, Money, and Knowledge – we cannot do anything without them” – ‘Judgment Creditor’. …Publications

Unique is the case of ‘Judgment Creditor’; disgracefully the perpetrator is the ‘Executive Branch of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates’

“Support the Judgment Creditor to strengthen the Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our Justice System”. The Judgment Creditor, who obtained four consecutive Judgments against ‘Willful Defaulters’ is very unique in all respects. [White Paper released by ‘Jabir P’, the ‘Judgment Creditor’]

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ [a brief-list is given below] narrating his ‘traumatic experiences’ and a life of hardship in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments from the Courts of Abu Dhabi, UAE. “If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

The Judgment Creditor is a survivor victim of the ‘cruelest torture’, unethical and inhuman treatments of Abu Dhabi executive branch. In the process, he was betrayed by the ‘UAE Administration’ and the ‘Government of India’ alike at every stage. He lost all precious things in life including his dignity, health and wealth.

The adamant nature of the ‘Judgment Debtor’, the ‘Administration of UAE’, in not executing the Portfolios of Judgments of the Higher Courts of that very Country is cowardice, illegal and a threat and disgrace to the ‘Judicial System of the UAE’ and the entire law-abiding human community of the world. Appropriate action has to be initiated by the authorities concerned at this later stage to reach Justice to the Judgment Creditor.

The Case of the Judgment Creditor

The case of the Judgment Creditor, an Indian businessman and investor at Abu Dhabi, U.A.E., is a unique-one in all respects. It was a story of frightening, blatant violation of the ‘Law’ and the most shocking travesty of ‘Constitution’ of the United Arab Emirates to which the victim was exposed to. The investor was threatened of dire consequences if he did not agree to withdraw a civil suit that he brought against his Emirati business partner. The investor did not accede to the extortion threats of some corrupt local police officials of the Emirate. Due to the seriousness of the case, the Civil Court of Abu Dhabi was pleased to issue an Interim Decision and Order in favour of the investor.

In total negation of the judicial order, the accused in collusion with the local police attacked the Judgment Creditor at his office; robbed of cash and valuables to force him to withdraw the lawsuit. He sought intervention from the police. The police did come, but instead of helping him, he was shackled and literally dragged out of the office and on through the street in the presence of known friends and bystanders.

The Judgment Creditor had to undergo extremes of ‘cruel torture‘, inflicted permanent physical damage and humiliation from Abu Dhabi Police which no human being can withstand. He was confined to a detention center and brutally tortured and later taken to ‘Central Prison’. These painful incidents totally destroyed the life of the Judgment Creditor in all respects. The ‘Duty and Responsibility’ of the authority to protect a Judgment Creditor against the threats of violence was left unattended.

It took six months thereafter, for the person to have his first appearance in Court. He was framed a false case, alleging “Using force against Government employee and assault”. The Trial Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent, the case was wholly false, baseless and that it was fabricated by the police for personal gain. The Apex Court of Abu Dhabi found that the victim is innocent; rather ‘a martyr. The Court, comprising three-judge panel, praised the properness of the behavior and courage of victim. It further reiterated the condemnation of prosecution. The Court ordered immediate release of the victim, ‘restoration’ of victim’s dignity and compensation for all his losses while pronouncing a ‘Landmark Judgment’.

Customarily, in UAE, the debtors will be jailed until they have paid their debt. But the debtor in this ‘Landmark Judgment’ is the State of UAE whose Ruler at the time was none other than the late Sheikh Zayed himself, the Emir of Abu Dhabi and absolute Ruler of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). To avoid honoring its moral obligations and assigned responsibilities, the UAE Administration served an arrogant, ‘Despotic Order of Deportation’ against the Judgment Creditor.

The victim was then re-victimized in a manner that was extremely ‘libelous’ – by ‘false statements as if he was punished for a crime’ and deported back to India. The ‘Judgment Creditor’ was entitled to execution of the Judgments and levies the Police Department of Abu Dhabi, worth hundreds of million US Dollars as compensation to restore his life, his dignity and his ‘business establishments’.

The illegal deportation of an established businessman from the country that caused a situation associated with great pain, loss of dignity, loss of his entire business institutions etc. Flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the ‘Rules of Law’ and Norms internationally upheld for safeguarding ‘Human Rights’; defrauding the Judgment Creditor is a personal and vindictive action and thus the Executive of the State was committed the most heinous, bizarre, and unspeakable crime.

The ‘legal fight for justice’ took in very many proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. The subject matter of his grave complaints were adjudicated by the major Courts in India as well, which concurrently found the multiple forms of crime taking place under the UAE Administration such as fraud, forgery, extortion, torture and many other offences and subsequently secured two more Judgments from the High Court of Delhi in the year of 1997 and 2007 respectively. Despite the directive of the Delhi High Court, the Government of India has not discharged its duties as indicated in the judicial orders.

The anguish resultant from the deprivation of his establishments, assets and reputation earned exclusively through the untiring personal efforts of the Judgment Creditor for over 18 years of prime of his life, causes extreme mental depression which will virtually make his life only a vegetable existence. The UAE Government which owes huge debts to the Judgment Creditor by way of the non-execution of the Judgments of the Courts of Abu Dhabi in his favour, and for those unspeakable crimes committed against him, is also solely and exclusively responsible for the closure of “his various ‘business establishments’ in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates”.

The victim, the Judgment Creditor, has one demand: The Government of India should consider taking the necessary steps to execute the Judgments passed by the higher Courts of Abu Dhabi through all means, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), on behalf of the Judgment Creditor and punish the guilty that was caused ‘Multi-billion Dollars’ worth of damage to the Judgment Creditor in order to strengthening the “Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our ‘Justice System”.

The Judgment Creditor approached various ‘Institutions’ including the Government of India, the Higher Judiciary, the NHRC, respectable Ministers, Parliamentarians and even the ‘United Nations’ [a brief list is given below] for redressal narrating his traumatic experiences and a life of hardship of the Judgment Creditor, in order to enforce the portfolio of Judgments which he could secure from the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi on the basis of genuine facts and convincing evidences produced there in.

“If these ‘institutions’ are not worthy of their names and status, what is the relevance of their existence and how they could be classified worthy?”

Communications between the Judgment Creditor and the following Institutions:-

The Judgment Debtor, the Late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Former UAE President and Ruler of Abu Dhabi

The worst cheating scandal of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE)
August 01, 2014 Reparation Law News, New Delhi

The Judgment Debtor, the Late Sheikh Zayed bin Sultan Al Nahyan, Former UAE President and Ruler of Abu Dhabi Emirate

[The title, the ‘judgment debtor’ is reserved to describe the person who owes the judgment creditor the amount (damages) stated in the criminal judgments and has not paid the debt. In common law in the UAE, the debtors will be jailed until they have paid their debt.]

The ‘Judgment Creditor’ was entitled to execution of the Judgments and levies the Police Department of Abu Dhabi, worth hundreds of million US Dollars as compensation to restore his life, his dignity and his business establishments.

The debtor in the ‘UAE Court Judgments’, is the State of UAE whose Ruler at the time was none other than the late Sheikh Zayed himself, the Emir of Abu Dhabi and absolute Ruler of the United Arab Emirates (UAE). It may be recalled that the Emir was blamed of having been instrumental in defrauding or cheating the Judgment Creditor to avoid honoring his moral obligations and assigned responsibilities.

The Judgment Creditor is an Indian businessman and investor, who was deprived of his valuable rights guaranteed by FOUR successive Judgments (1 Civil & 3 Criminal Court Judgments) from the Legal Courts of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates (UAE); and TWO consecutive Judgments from the High Court of Delhi, after approaching the Supreme Court of India in October, 1996.

The businessman was victimized by the officials of Abu Dhabi, UAE, and the subject matter of his grave complaints were adjudicated by the Courts in Abu Dhabi and Delhi which concurrently found the multiple forms of crime taking place under the wings of the ‘Ministry of Interior United Arab Emirates (UAE)’, such as fraud, forgery, extortion, torture and many other offences.

Both the Courts in Abu Dhabi, the Court of First Instance and the Apex Court were fully satisfied with the highest standard of proof, beyond any doubt that the Police was guilty. The Court observed that all the pieces of evidence indicated the proper behavior of the victim and held that he is innocent; rather ‘a martyr’. The Apex Court comprised of three Judges passed a ‘Landmark Judgment’ in the history of UAE.

The head of the State have a ‘constitutional duty’ to faithfully execute the judicial orders of the country. Any civilized Government is bound to implement the verdict of the judiciary, as that is the basic requirement of the Rule of Law. ‘Laws governing the international community’ do require compliance by the Executive Government, in full measure, with the verdict of the judiciary. This requirement of law was breached by the UAE Government. Instead of enforcing the judgments, the Judgment Creditor was expelled from the country by an arbitrary administrative action, resulting in total destruction of his life, his businesses and his profession.

The administrative action of the UAE was totally illegal and arbitrary, as the Executive cannot override or overrule a decision of the very Courts of the country that ruled reparation to a victim; defrauding the judgment creditor is a personal and vindictive action; it is unofficial and illegal. The UAE Government owes huge debts to the creditor, solely and exclusively responsible for the closure of “his various ‘business establishments’ in Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates”.

The ‘legal fight for justice’ took in very many proceedings before the Supreme Court of India and the High Court of Delhi. Despite the directive of the Delhi High Court, the Government of India has not discharged its duties as indicated in the judicial order.

The enforcement of UAE judgment that was delayed and denied for a long period of nearly two decades has to be satisfied without any further delay so that the ‘Judgment Debtor(s)’ could avoid unpleasant consequences that will follow. The creditor holds full power of the Foreign Courts as well as the Domestic Courts to support his claim and to take debtor’s property (lien) in the UAE, where the judgment is recorded, if the obligation is not discharged.

The recent decision of the London High Court on ‘Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, Saudi Arabia has marked a turning point in the doctrine of ‘State Immunity’ of Foreign States. The landmark decision of Royal Courts of Justice, reaffirm the Rights of Judgment Creditor to pursue his enforcement efforts against the UAE debtors!

The lawyers for Prince Abdul Aziz, the king’s son, argued he had “state immunity” and the court had no jurisdiction to try the claim of Mrs Harb, who was the “secret” Christian wife of the late King of Saudi Arabia. But the learned Judge of the London High Court, Mrs Justice Rose threw out the prince’s argument, opening the way for a full hearing of the case which risks embarrassing the House of Saud.

Some important points of the judicial decision includes (a) the ‘personal immunity ceases when a head of state is no longer, for whatever reason, in office’ ; (b) the ‘head of a state enjoy immunity only in respect of their official acts whilst in office’ ; (c) a ‘successor regime is obliged to compensate the victim of state wrongs’. The Court also relied on Article 39 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations 1961. Under this provision, immunity ratione personae, personal immunity, for an ambassador lasts only while he or she is in office. [‘London High Court on ‘Harb v HRH Prince Abdul Aziz Bin Fahd Bin Abdul Aziz, Rose J, [2014] EWHC 1807 (Ch),09/06/2014′].

The Government of India is duty bound to safeguard the interests of its citizen who was victimized by Abu Dhabi, UAE, the receiving state. But even after the lapse of nearly two decades, the Government of India has totally failed to help, implement judicial orders of the UAE and of Delhi High Court. These actions and omissions on the part of the Government is contrary to the ‘Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (VCCR) 1963’ particularly Article 5, enforced from 19-3-1967. A recent judgment of the Supreme Court which casts liability on a Government for the delay in the disposal of the complaints of a citizen, even when the delay is at the instance of a Legal authority or Tribunal.

Endnotes:

We intend to give wide coverage to the issue in public interest; to protect innocent people, of being exposed to the kinds of brutal, inhuman tortures (mental, physical and economic) and to safeguard the interests of UAE Judgment Creditors in future.

Reminder Notice to the Government of India
It is fervently hoped that the new Government will duly consider taking the necessary steps to execute the judgments through all means, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial body of the United Nations (UN), on behalf of the judgment creditor. …

’Judgment for sale’ is a campaign, primarily organized by voluntary member contributions. It’s a value added, investment campaign, aimed to expose the debtors who hide Judicial decisions, commit fraud or other heinous acts to avoid honoring their obligations. As a lawful owner of a legal Judgment, the winner has every right to offer his un-executed Judgments for sale or to make efforts to legally enforce and recover his assets and the inherent rights of individuals to dignity. (‘Read more at FAQ’)

Court Judgments are not worthless piece of papers!

When an issue arises, the aggrieved party files a suit, conduct the same through able counsel, present relevant documents and witnesses before the court and the case is heard at length. It is after a lengthy legal procedures that the Hon’ble Judges pronounce the judgment, giving due weight to every aspect of the case. The aggrieved party is greatly relieved on getting judgment in his favour. He is full of hope, relief and happy on winning the case. From the day next, he wait for the execution of the judgment and receiving benefits thereof.

In Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.S.-led private security contractors have been linked to anti coalition activities, murder, bribery, and kidnapping. This pattern has now been actively introduced into already volatile regions, like East Ukraine and the Middle Eastern nations.

Russia is calling on the United States to take steps to curb involvement of foreign mercenaries in the ongoing military operation in Ukraine. Engaging mercenaries is totally in violation of the rules and regulations contained in the UN Convention of the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.

U.S. mercenaries, formerly known as Blackwater, are reportedly taking part in Ukraine’s military operations against the people fighting for their rights in south-eastern regions of Ukraine.

The U.S. State Department officials say the allegations that there are ‘U.S mercenaries’ operating in Ukraine are false.”

Blackwater is a private military contracting firm founded by former Navy SEAL Erik Prince in 1997. Blackwater mercenaries were made infamous during the invasion of Iraq for their frequent and unprovoked killings of dozens of innocent civilians. It includes the massacre of 17 civilians in Iraq by Blackwater employees, the FBI found. “I put myself and my company at the C.I.A.’s disposal for some very risky missions” says Erik Prince, the former CEO of Blackwater Worldwide.

Late last year, Prince published a book, Civilian Warriors. ‘The Inside Story of Blackwater and the Unsung Heroes of the War on Terror’. Mr. Prince writes that his company has been demonized around the world, because of the secrecy requirements of Blackwater’s contracts with the Pentagon, the State Department, and the CIA, Prince was unable to speak out; he is bound under the terms of his non-disclosure agreement with the U.S. agencies’.

Erik Prince sold his Corporation’s US-based 7,000-acre training facility in Moyock, North Carolina in 2010 to a group of investors close to his family, which is now known as ‘Academi’. Prince retained all rights to the Blackwater name as well as the control of numerous companies that once operated under the umbrella of Blackwater.

Erik Prince is now resettled in Abu Dhabi, the capital of United Arab Emirates with his so-called mercenary army grouped under Reflex Responses, known as R2, alongside the UAE Armed Force, Zayed Military City of Abu Dhabi.

Last year, the Colombia’s defense ministry was alarmed about an exodus of top soldiers to the UAE to join a highly paid American-led mercenary force organized by Erik Prince, for his security company Blackwater (rebranded “Xe”). Prince’s mercenary forces in the UAE, is made up largely of Colombian soldiers, who have acquired this capability and skill through training they have received from the Israeli, US and British experts.

Erik Prince was hired by Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed, the crown prince of Abu Dhabi, to deliver an 800-strong first test battalion for the UAE. The $529m initial deal between Mr Prince and the Crown Prince is slated to run through May 2015. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who is the immediate ruler of the United Arab Emirates.

While the actual assignment given to Mr. Prince, the founder of a controversial security company Blackwater was to silence the pro-democratic activists inside and outside the country, the UAE took a stand that they were brought only to impart training for a Special Security Group.

UAE is a federation of seven Emirates situated on the Arabian Peninsula, is attributed to authoritarian regime and most powerful among them being Emirate of Abu Dhabi, holding 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 5% of the world’s gas reserves. Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

The late Sheikh Zayed, installed in August 1966 as head of the oil-rich Abu Dhabi, through a British-led coup against his brother, Sheikh Shakhbut (Ruled:1928-66). Zayed was in power until his death in Nov. 2, 2004. Sheikh Khalifa, the eldest son of Sheikh Zayed, succeeded him to the leadership of Abu Dhabi and UAE.

The ruling regime of UAE is notorious for its Human Rights records. It restricts people’s freedom and controls them by arbitrary arrests, torture, enforced disappearances and killings. The regime is continued to suppress the press by imposing tough laws in the Emirates, set up massive funds, men and machinery to crush down all democratic aspirations across the Arab world. This is done out of their fear that the struggles for democracy may, in turn, take over their regime as well. Hundreds of innocents are being killed in the process in neighbouring countries such as Bahrain and Egypt.

According to ‘Global Research Centre’ the force is aimed at suppressing the people’s struggles in the Gulf countries, with interventions similar to those in Bahrain. It was reported that, once the efficiency of the battalion has been tested, Abu Dhabi will fund worth billions of dollars for a whole brigade of several thousand mercenaries. Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed is a trusted Pentagon associate. He also supports military intervention directed against Iran. The crown prince and his friend Erick Prince, however, are the executors of the project, which was decided in Washington. Its purpose was revealed in documents quoted by the New York Times.

Mercenaries are mostly former military personnel or ex-policemen who kill people just for money. By taking recourse to the formation of a brutal private mercenary army, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi has demonstrated his intention to resist civil uprisings with violent repression. Blackwater has been involved since the first days of the occupation in Iraq and had 30 plus casualties including in a high-profile incident in Fallujah. By organizing a private hard-core mercenary army to crush their own people, UAE has violated all norms of Human Rights and undermined the international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions.

The 1989 U.N. Convention represents an endeavour by the international community to outlaw mercenarism in all its manifestations and consists of 21 articles. According to Article 5 of the Convention, States Parties shall not recruit, use, finance or train mercenaries for the purpose of opposing the legitimate exercise of the inalienable right of peoples to self-determination, as recognized by international law, and shall take, in conformity with international law, the appropriate measures to prevent the recruitment, use, financing or training of mercenaries for that purpose. (Ref.2)

Threats posed by Mercenaries

“Mercenaries pose a threat not only to security, but also to human rights and potentially to the right of peoples to self-determination,” said Faiza Patel, who chaired the study. The study said mercenaries were used in the past to fight in wars between countries but recently the Governments had used mercenaries against their own populations. It said private military and security companies receive between $20 billion and $100 billion per year. (Ref.3)

Responding to complaints and questionnaire sent by Ms. Faiza Patel, Chair-Rapporteur of the U.N. Working Group, who has been studying the issues of private military and security companies, in regards with the laws regulating the activities of recruits or engaging mercenaries in the country, the UAE replied in a dishonest and fraudulent manner that no mercenary group is working in the UAE as a means of violating human rights. The foreign security companies operating in the UAE are under the supervision of the UAE Ministry of Interior, further that their scope of work is limited to “preventive security protection’. License granted to these security companies do not grant them powers of judicial control and their personnel are prohibited from acquiring or carrying any fire arms in accordance to Article 10, 12 and 16 of Federal Decree 37 of year 2006 concerning private companies and their executive regulations”. (Ref.4)

“Blackwater is the modern version of mercenaries that have been used by corrupt governments and regimes throughout history,” American investigative journalist Alex Jones said during an interview with Press TV’s US Desk. According to Jones, Blackwater, which represents the “21st century death squad,” carries out any mission it is paid to do.

The former employees of Blackwater said that in recruiting the Colombians and others from halfway around the world, subordinates were following his strict rule: hire no Muslims. Muslim soldiers, Mr. Prince warned, could not be counted on to kill fellow Muslims. For him, there is no legal accountability and no internationally accepted criteria as they will operate outside any known jurisdictions and most probably in stealth. Prince’s latest venture in the UAE has the hallmarks of government-sponsored military anarchy.

The executed contract between the Blackwater, American-led mercenaries and the UAE authority is available below for reference. “Copy of Mercenary Contract between the GHQ Armed Forces of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and the Blackwater, now called Xe Services [Reflex Responses Management Consultancy or R2 ] of Abu Dhabi for June 2010 to May 2015” (The contract is renewable in 2015) (Ref.5)

As against these crude facts and verifiable truth, the denial of the UAE about presence of any mercenary group reflects and reinforces its Human Rights Violations, cruelties and the tendency of cheating its own people, renowned experts, academic institutions and the UN commissions as a whole. This is an alarming and disgraceful situation to every one!

The Luanda Draft Convention again stressed the responsibility of individual states to prevent their nationals from taking part in mercenary activities, as well as those individual persons defined as mercenaries. State responsibility, as such, is conveyed in Article 319 that makes government officials who undertake to employ, aid, or recruit mercenaries liable for criminal prosecution. Thus, failure by a State to carry out the prosecution of officials who had undertaken such activities would, argues Taulbee, ‘create international responsibility on the part of the offending State’. (Ref.6)

Appendage

“Live by the Sword, Die by the Sword’ is an old saying. It means those who take the sword, shall perish by the sword. Read below what others say about:
“Prince could one day turn on his employers, shoot up their palaces, and stand astride their glittering towers as lord of all he surveys. And a South African mercenary with a pencil moustache could run the Emirati justice ministry, conjuring up memories of a regime we assumed was long dead. Stranger things have happened. One hopes, for the al-Nayhan’s sake, they have a good contract in place, and a new New Model Army to counter their New Model Army. Erik Prince might turn out to be their most dangerous high-end acquisition”. DM

The author, Mr. Jabir, an Indian businessman and investor, who was closely associated with the Private Department of Shaikh Zayed Bin Sultan Al-Nahyan, the then Emir of Abu Dhabi and also the President of United Arab Emirates. In November, 1996, Jabir became the Whistleblower, taken efforts to improve the regime’s brutal prison conditions by exposing the cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment prevailing in the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE. …More about the Author

UAE is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion in the list of SIPRI Military Expenditure Database 2014.

Middle Eastern nations increased their military expenditure by billions of dollars last year, Saudi Arabia, the largest spender in the region, increased spending by 14 per cent to a total of $67.0 billion in 2013. The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion. The comprehensive annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database is accessible from today at www.sipri.org.

According to the SIPRI (Stockholm International Peace Research Institute) Military Expenditure Database, the gobal military expenditure was $1747 billion in 2013, a fall of 1.9 per cent in real terms since 2012, according to figures released today by Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI). The database describes the global, regional and national trends in military expenditure that are revealed by the new data.

The fall in the global total comes from decreases in Western countries, led by the United States, and despite increases in all other regions. In fact, military spending in the rest of the world excluding the USA increased by 1.8 per cent.

The next three highest spenders—China, Russia and Saudi Arabia—all made substantial increases, with Saudi Arabia leapfrogging the United Kingdom, Japan and France to become the world’s fourth largest military spender. China, Russia and Saudi Arabia are among the 23 countries around the world that have more than doubled their military expenditure since 2004.

The fall in US spending in 2013, by 7.8 per cent, is the result of the end of the war in Iraq, the beginning of the drawdown from Afghanistan, and the effects of automatic budget cuts passed by the US Congress in 2011. Meanwhile, austerity policies continued to determine trends in Western and Central Europe and in other Western countries.

‘The increase in military spending in emerging and developing countries continues unabated,’ said Dr Sam Perlo-Freeman, Director of SIPRI’s Military Expenditure Programme. ‘While in some cases it is the natural result of economic growth or a response to genuine security needs, in other cases it represents a squandering of natural resource revenues, the dominance of autocratic regimes, or emerging regional arms races.’

Saudi Arabia and Iraq dominate increase in the Middle East

Military spending in the Middle East increased by 4.0 per cent in 2013, reaching an estimated $150 billion. Saudi Arabia’s spending increased by 14 per cent, to reach $67 billion, possibly due to tensions with Iran but also the desire to maintain strong and loyal security forces to insure against potential ‘Arab Spring’ type protests.

Maintaining regime survival in the face of internal opposition is also the likely motive for Bahrain’s 26 per cent increase. However, the largest regional increase was by Iraq (27 per cent), as it continued the rebuilding of its armed forces.

‘Military spending data for Iran, Qatar, Syria and the United Arab Emirates are not available for 2013, which means that the estimated regional total is highly uncertain. This reflects the general opacity of military spending in the region, and even where data is available it may not cover all military spending,’ said Dr Perlo-Freeman.

Resources fuelling arms acquisitions in Africa

Military spending in Africa increased by 8.3 per cent in 2013, reaching an estimated $44.9 billion. Over two-thirds of the African countries for which data is available increased military spending in 2013. Algeria became the first country in Africa with military spending over $10 billion, an increase of 8.8 per cent since 2012, and of 176 per cent since 2004. Meanwhile, Angola increased its spending by 36 per cent in 2013, to overtake South Africa as the largest military spender in sub-Saharan Africa, and the second highest on the continent. High oil revenues appear to be a factor driving both Algeria’s and Angola’s military spending increases.

The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is ranked to fifteenth place with $19 billion in the list of annual update of the SIPRI Military Expenditure Database. Terror is being practiced by the Regime of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, against its own people, foreign nationals and its neighboring countries. Some of the links to the UAE’s state-sponsored terrorism are as in the following:

Mubadala, a public joint stock company (PJSC), by the Government of of Abu Dhabi, UAE, is looking at how it can become a bigger player in the region’s military supply chain, its top aerospace executive said on Sunday. “What we would like to do is see how we can synergize these activities and line them up in a manner where we can actually start building a bigger presence in the region,” said Homaid Al Shemmari, CEO, Mubadala Aerospace and Engineering Services.

Mubadala, Tawzaun and Emirates Advanced Investment announced last week that they had signed a Memorandum of Understanding to explore a unification of their defence services businesses. Al Shermmari, speaking at a media roundtable in Abu Dhabi on Sunday, confirmed that discussions between the three companies will start immediately. However, he stopped short of confirming a full-fledged merger of the three.

He said the companies will be open about their strategies so that they can find a mutually beneficially model.

Al Shemmari said he is interested in providing training, maintenance, supply chain, storage management and maintenance, repair and overhaul services to the region.

About Mubadala Development Company
‘Mubadala’ was established in October 2002 as a public joint stock company (PJSC), by the Government of the Emirate of Abu Dhabi, UAE, as a principal agent. Focused on investment and development across multiple sectors, Mubadala’s portfolio is valued at more than US $55 billion. Mubadala is an active investor in sectors and geographies that hold exciting potential and tangible returns, working in partnership with a number of world-class organizations. As of 2013, Mubadala has operations spanning in more than 17 countries. H.H. Sheikh Mohamed Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Abu Dhabi’s Crown Prince and Deputy Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces, is Chairman of the company. Mubadala is the Arabic word for “exchange.”

About Tawazun Dynamics
Tawazun Dynamics was set up in September 2012 as a joint venture between Tawazun Holding and the Dynamics division of South Africa’s largest defence manufacturer, Denel.
Tawazun Dynamics, a member of the Tawazun Group, is operating its Abu Dhabi-based facility for the development, manufacture, assembly and integration of precision-guided systems for conventional air munitions. The company is 51% owned by Tawazun and 49% by Denel.

IDEX

The International Defence Exhibition and Conference (IDEX), Abu Dhabi,is the region’s largest tri-service defence show for the industry to showcase emerging technology, equipment, trends and strategy. “Mubadala is the principal participant of the IDEX along with eight of its subsidiary companies that support the UAE Armed Forces and regional militaries. From 2011 onward, the Naval Defence Exhibition (NAVDEX) running in parallel, the combined events will feature a comprehensive array of land, sea and air defence systems and equipment.

NAVDEX
NAVDEX, the Maritime Security Area features local and international exhibitors who specialise in naval, maritime and coastal security technology, equipment and crafts. NAVDEX also features, on-water exhibits, daily demonstrations and visiting navy vessels. Abu Dhabi Ship Building, a Mubadala subsidiary, is a leading participant at the NAVDEX. IDEX and NAVDEX takes place biennially at the Abu Dhabi National Exhibition Centre (ADNEC), which is centrally located in Abu Dhabi, the capital of the United Arab Emirates.

About Abu Dhabi
The United Arab Emirates (UAE) is a federation of seven Emirates situated on the Arabian peninsula. The Emirate of Abu Dhabi has a population of 2 million and holds 9% of the world’s oil reserves and 5% of the world’s gas reserves. Abu Dhabi is the capital of the United Arab Emirates (UAE).

Links to State-sponsored Terrorism

UAE’s state-sponsored terrorism. Terror practiced by the Regime of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, against its own people, foreign nationals and its neighboring countries

Support the victim; buy ‘Landmark Judgments’ of Abu Dhabi Courts![A unique investment plan with high returns, who respect the judiciary]

Outright sale of the judgment [Unexecuted] is not envisioned. Funds are proposed to be raised by distribution of shares. One can invest a sum as small as $USD 1,000.00 in a valid Legal Judgment. “A Portfolio of UAE Judgments for Sale” The UAE Judgment have been guaranteed three times more value of investment along with 4.5% yearly bonus. In some cases, the earnings will go up Ten Times (ie. $1,000 x 10 = $USD 10,000.00) worth their investment. ..Read Terms & Conditions

‘Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial’. The Executive of the State was duty bound to adhere to the orders of the Judiciary of the land. Flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the Rules of Law and norms internationally upheld for safeguarding Human Rights. “Reputation of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates!”

UN expert calls for probe of ‘torture’ in UAE prisons
February 5, 2014 By Lynne al-Nahhas

UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, Gabriela Knaul, at UN headquarters in San Salvador on November 26, 2012 (AFP Photo/Jose Cabezas)

Abu Dhabi (AFP) – A UN expert on Wednesday urged an independent probe into allegations of torture in United Arab Emirates prisons, which she was not allowed to visit during a fact-finding mission.

Gabriela Knaul, the UN Special Rapporteur on the Independence of Judges and Lawyers, also criticised “violations” and a “lack of transparency” in court proceedings in the Gulf country, where dozens of Islamists have been rounded up.

Knaul called for independence for the UAE judiciary, which she said “remains under the de facto control of the executive branch of government.”

The UAE foreign ministry welcomed her visit, pledging to “study the remarks and recommendations” she made.

But it complained that some of Knaul’s comments “were based on information that had no known sources and was consistent with a politically motivated campaign by a group seeking to distort the UAE’s reputation.”

In her preliminary report on a nine-day visit, Knaul urged the UAE to “establish an independent committee to investigate all allegations of torture and ill-treatment in detention.”

She told a press conference she had received “credible information and evidence” that detainees are arrested without warrant, blindfolded, taken to unknown places and held incommunicado, sometimes for months.

She said she also had evidence of detainees being “tortured and/or subjected to ill-treatment” including by being put in “electric chairs.”

She said she was not allowed to visit prisons or meet with certain detainees, adding that “on one occasion, I was followed.”

The UAE has not seen any of the widespread protests that have swept other Arab states since 2011. However, authorities have cracked down hard on dissent and calls for democratic reform, drawing criticism from human rights groups.

The top UAE security court last month jailed a group of 30 Emiratis and Egyptians convicted of forming a Muslim Brotherhood cell for terms ranging from three months to five years.

The 10 UAE citizens in the group were among 69 nationals jailed in July for up to 15 years on separate charges of plotting to overthrow the government.

Evidence sometimes ‘fabricated’

In her report, Knaul said supreme court rulings must be subject to appeal, criticising “an apparent lack of transparency during both the investigation phase and court proceedings.”

She spoke of claims that “evidence is sometimes manipulated and fabricated by the police or other security agencies and the prosecution.”

“The lack of transparency is compounded when the court hearings are not public,” she added.

Only selected relatives of the defendants, in addition to local journalists and representatives of human rights groups were allowed to attend the Islamists’ trial.

Knaul also accused the UAE of “disturbing” treatment of women “who dare to file a complaint for sexual assault.”

In July, a Norwegian woman was released following a pardon by the Dubai ruler. Although she had filed a rape report with police, the woman found herself tried and jailed for extramarital sex, perjury and consuming alcohol without a licence.

The UAE, which is home to millions of expatriates, must also “redouble efforts to allow access to justice, in particular to vulnerable groups, such as migrant and domestic workers,” she said.

It should provide “quality interpretation and translation for non-Arabic speakers at all stages of legal proceedings.”

In 2010, the appeal of 17 Indian expatriates sentenced to death after being convicted of killing a Pakistani was repeatedly delayed for lack of an interpreter, drawing strong criticism from Indian human rights groups.

The court later commuted the death sentences to two years in prison followed by deportation.

‘Oh, I have lost my reputation! I have lost the immortal part of myself, and what remains is bestial’. The Executive of the State was duty bound to adhere to the orders of the Judiciary of the land. Flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the Rules of Law and norms internationally upheld for safeguarding Human Rights. “Reputation of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates!”

The terrifying real-life experience of the petitioner, an Indian national, will speak about the cruelties of Abu Dhabi, much louder than words.

The Government of India has never risen to occasions against the brutality and humiliation inflicted upon an Indian citizen in UAE despite multiple judgments from that country in his favour.

Under international law, the state is responsible for all actions or omissions of its officials and organs. This is the function of the basic rules of international law concerning the responsibility of States for their internationally wrongful acts and the legal consequences which flow therefrom.

“We therefore specifically demand that all the progressive and democratic governments must adopt a ‘victim-centered approach’ in their criminal justice process and thereby strengthening the Integrity of the Judiciary and people’s confidence in our Justice System”.

‘Please find the following brief from behind the scenes’ and that’s how the ruling regime of Abu Dhabi and United Arab Emirates (UAE) has lost its ‘Reputation’! (‘Reputation is an idle and most false imposition; oft got without merit, and lost without deserving’ ― William Shakespeare, Othello)

When a dispute arose with a local landlord, the petitioner as on behalf of his contracting firm, instituted a civil suit in Abu Dhabi Court for settling the issue. The conspiracy on the part of landlord, to avoid paying debts was one of the important and thrusting points in the civil suit. An interim order was granted by Abu Dhabi Court of Justice in favour of the petitioner.

The defeated landlord turned against the petitioner and took recourse to all illegal and unethical means to regain his ‘Reputation’. The landlord was claiming to be a close associate of the ‘Crown Prince’ of Abu Dhabi. He abused the acquaintance and intimacy with the office of ‘Crown Prince’ for making wrongful gain at the expense of the petitioner. Certain corrupt police officials colluded with him. Making a forcible entry into the petitioner’s place, the petitioner was threatened to withdraw the Civil Suit.

The petitioner was brutally tortured and literally dragged out of his office along the street in the presence of known friends and bystanders. He was confined to a detention center where he was again tortured in a horrifying manner and rushed the unconscious victim to hospital-emergency. He was subjected to the greatest ordeals by being taken from hospital to the underground lock-up and illegally kept incommunicado in solitary confinement. He was confined to secret detention centers in different days with all sorts of malpractices resulting in injury, bodily damage and injury to his reputation.

The petitioner was threatened with dire consequences if he did not agree to withdraw the civil suit filed against the landlord. But he did not accede to their extortion threats. The dreadful agony and blackmailing was intensified thereupon; he had to undergo extremes of cruel torture and humiliation from Abu Dhabi Police which no human being can withstand. However, he was spared from death. After four months of arrest, a false case was registered against him, alleging “Using force against Government employee and assault”. It took six months thereafter, for the petitioner to have his first appearance in Court.

(Scene Two) In the Court of First Instance, it was for the Prosecutor in pursuit of his notoriety and fame;

The Court listened to the evidences of eye-witnesses from different Nationalities. “The witnesses did not care the threat of State Police and Public Prosecution, and they dared to explain the facts”. Mr. Saleem Raza, a Pakistani who said a policeman was holding an iron bar of one meter length in his hand, threatening anyone who came near the office premises of the accused and was shouting “Indian, Pakistani and Bengalis all are thieves and procurers”.

Mr. Zulfiqar Ali who gave similar statement, moreover he added-that the appellee have neither resisted the police nor they have beaten anyone from the patrolling squad and that the appellee are of good nature “I am a Pakistani and they are Indian, no relations are between us, and my testimony is based on truth only. Further the Court listened to the statement of the 3rd witness Mr. Shirban Kalobar from Iran, whose testimony came similar to the declaration of the first two witnesses.

The innocence of the petitioner had been ultimately upheld by the Hon’ble Judge of Abu Dhabi Legal Court of First Instance. The Court found that, the Prosecutor was guilty of proceeding against the petitioner. The Court acquitted the petitioner of all the charges leveled against him and directed the authorities to prosecute the Policeman involved and also the Landlord –for being guilty of deception.

At this stage, the Prosecutor got offended, and he took up the case further, to regain his ‘false prestige’. The office of the Public Prosecutor, Abu Dhabi filed an appeal against the decree of the legal court of the first instance.

(Scene Three) By losing in the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi, it’s ultimately linked with the Ministry of Interior, United Arab Emirates (UAE) for its grossly inflated ‘Reputation’

The case finally came up before the Apex Court, comprising the three-judge panel. The petitioner was granted bail on the filing of the appeal. However, despite the bail and sureties he was not released from the prison. During the hearing, the Police officer dropped his claim from his complaint with a declaration attested by the Notary Public. Finally, the Landlord and the Prosecutor followed the suit and told that they have absolutely no case against the accused.

The eminent Jurists Panel of Apex Court cross-examined all aspects of the case and found that the accused was innocent; rather ‘a martyr’.

“The Court observed that all the pieces of evidence indicated the properness of the behavior of victim, the accused. The Court having been convinced about the innocence of the victim quoted the ‘Islamic Law’ that should be practiced by everyone following the Islam Religion. The case was wholly false, baseless and that it was fabricated by the police for personal gain. The appellate review highlighted the culpability of the policeman and emphasized the notoriety of his actions and violations of Human Rights. “It further reiterated the condemnation of prosecutor”. The Court, therefore, ordered restoration of victim’s dignity and respect and to compensate for all his losses while pronouncing a ‘Landmark Judgment’ .

In spite of all that, the UAE Administration, in a supremely foolish and cowardly manner disagreed to execute the orders of the highest Judiciary of that land, as they thought it would affect the UAE’s Reputation. To overcome this uncomfortable situation and to uphold their grossly inflated ‘Reputation’, the Administration deliberately chose to give a fatal blow to the ‘Judgment Creditor’, who won the lawsuit, with a continued incarceration instead of enforcing the Judicial rulings, the immediate release of the victim and to restore the dignity and respect of the victim.

(Scene Four) New sequence of fatal events by the UAE Administration, the ‘Judgment Debtor’

It was only after three months a new sequence of fatal events unfolded by the UAE Administration, who is in fact the ‘debtor’ in the case against which an unsatisfied court order was awarded. The UAE Administration treated the ‘Judgment Creditor’ as an offender instead, and passed yet another illegal and unconstitutional order of deportation, quoting the very same fabricated charge of “Using force against Government employee and assault” (the charge had been struck down earlier by the Lower Court and the Apex Court of Abu Dhabi by concurring verdicts; on the contrary, it was proved that both the plaintiff and police personals were the aggressors who cruelly assaulted the victim without any provocation) and deported the petitioner to India as if he was punished for a crime’.

Thus, in this case, the ‘Truth and Justice have nakedly been sacrificed for UAE’s Reputation’. The agony of petitioner continues unabated.

EndNote

As per the Law prevailing in the UAE and its high values reflected by the periodic propaganda through the media, the Executive of the State was duty bound to adhere to the orders of the Judiciary of the land. It is respectfully submitted that flouting the orders of a judicial body is totally destructive of the Rules of Law and norms internationally upheld for safeguarding Human Rights.

Department, organized a seminar to commemorate International Human Rights Day. The event, which is celebrated annually on December 10th, was held at the Ministry of Interior’s auditorium. This year’s event took place under the slogan “20 Years of Working for your Rights” and marked the 20th anniversary of the establishment of the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights.

Brigadier Ahmed Mohammed Nehkairah, Head of Human Rights Department at the Ministry of Interior attended the seminar along with Mahir Al Obad, Assistant Undersecretary for Inspection Affairs at the Ministry of Labor; Brigadier General Dr. Abdullah bin Sahoo Al Suwaidi, Director General of Residency and Foreigners Affairs in Sharjah; Brigadier Mohammed Khalifa Al Marar, Director General of Undersecretary Diwan at the Ministry of Interior; and a number of other officers from the Ministry of Interior.

In his speech, Brigadier Nehkairah said that the Ministry of Interior is one of the ministries responsible for protecting Human Rights. He said that the ministry is committed to keep up with national and international developments in human rights, and is determined to increase the awareness of human rights within the ministry: “The Ministry of Interior is keen to boosting collaboration with all concerned bodies and authorities. This strategy aims toimplement the best methods and practices that can improve the UAE’s position in both regional and international spheres.

He also added that the ministry is deeply concerned with institutional structures that take care of and maintain human rights and is concerned with protecting victims against any infringements that they might be subjected to. To attain this goal, the ministry established the Human Rights Department and other establishments. The ministry has also inaugurated the Human Rights Committee and the National Committee to Combat Human Trafficking, in addition to giving extra care to all members of society, especially women, children, people with special needs, the elderly, and crime victims.

Brigadier Nehkairah concluded his speech by thanking the attendees for the efforts they made to bring it success. He also wished them luck and success.

For his part, Brigadier General Dr. Abdullah bin Sahoo Al Suwaidi, Director General of Residency and Foreigners Affairs in Sharjah, elaborated in his essay on the efforts made to protect house maids in the UAE. He pointed out that the UAE is a role model in the field of human rights, particularly among the labor force. He explained how the country’s higher leadership has offered the labor force all of its attention by issuing legislations and programs that grant workers a respectable life. This strategy was reflected in the UAE 2021 Vision which aims to establish a stable job market that is based on a productive work force that has the ability to strengthen the economy.

He added that the UAE is toiling at various levels to protect the rights and freedoms of individuals, and to improve their living conditions; issues that come at the top of the federal government’s priorities. “The country’s leadership did not only concentrate on the legislative aspect; it has joined efforts with various government and private institutions to achieve this goal, out of the abiding faith in the need to work according to a unified system to protect human rights and support the labor force.

He stated that domestic service workers are subject to direct supervision by the Ministry of Interior, and that the ministry has taken all the necessary measures to improve their conditions. This is in line with the ministry’s objectives of achieving equality, preserving human rights, and protecting domestic service workers in the UAE. To attain these objectives, the ministry has issued a number of procedures to safeguard and aid the laborers. The procedures include, but are not limited to, imposing work contracts, holding specialized training programs, and establishing institutions that educate, raise awareness, and settle disputes.

Brigadier General Abdullah bin Sahoo Al Suwaidi said that the government is making efforts to implement a law designed specifically for domestic workers. The law will mark a milestone in the government’s journey in improving the laws and regulations that aim to create security, stability, and a respectable life for all the people that live in this country.

The bill contains a number of articles that protect the rights of domestic workers. These include articles that will help the organization of labor agencies and define their responsibilities, regulate work conditions and time off. The articles specify what the employers’ responsibilities are and impose inspections on all domestic service agencies, making sure that employers meet certain requirements regarding working conditions and accommodation. The articles also address compensation laws and other rights the workers are entitled to through their contracts.

The new law will complement the government’s procedures in protecting domestic service workers, eliminating bad practices that the workers are sometimes subjected to, and ensures the rights of these workers in their different categories. Along with this new law, the Emirati judicial system was able to create an exemplary department that specializes in such labor cases. The Abu Dhabi Judicial Department (ADJD) took an unprecedented step and established a judicial section at various judiciary levels that specializes in domestic service-related issues. These courts work within the framework of the UAE’s judicial system, and is meant to apply the principles of specialized laws, ensuring and providing more protection for these workers. ADJD also decided on establishing a specialized committee that will settle domestic service-related disputes. The committees will be responsible for reconciliation and will work under the Alternative Disputes Resolution (ADR) Section at the department.

Mahir Al Obad, Assistant Undersecretary for Inspection Affairs at the Ministry of Labor, presented an essay on human rights in relation to job market, highlighting the Ministry of Labor’s mission to regulate the job market. He also explained that the ministry is committed to providing basic rights for laborers because the UAE’s leadership believes that workers deserve to have their rights protected. Based on this vision, the government issued Federal Law NO. (8) Of 1980 regulating work conditions. The government issued amendments and executive orders with a view to establish a legal framework that will protect workers. He pointed out that the Emirati legislator granted women and juveniles their rights, and placed these regulations within the framework of law to ensure their protection by issuing standards and principles defined in Federal Law NO. (8) Of 1980. This law preserves the worker’s rights. Through this law, the Emirati legislator defined the conditions of hiring workers, and drafted the laws that prevent juveniles under the age of 15 from working. This law also grants women their rights and prevents them from being hired for dangerous work. It also grants women their maternity leave and designated breastfeeding hours.

Mr. Al Obad emphasized the need to regulate the job market to ensure foreign workers are granted their rights, and emphasized the fact that workers have freedom of choice and are working in a country that has a system of transparency. This was accomplished by cooperating with their home countriesin order to deliver awareness programs that are offered when they leave their countries, and are offered upon arrival in the UAE.

The regulations also limit labor agencies’ activities, which ultimately helps prevent cases of human trafficking. In addition to that, various mechanisms and procedures were developed to issue work permits, eliminating black market visas and makes changing jobs an easier process.

He also explained that the Ministry of Labor has taken several steps to control the job market by granting workers the right to move to a new job after finishing the specified employment period indicated on their contracts, granting the worker the right to moving to a new employer if his current employer does not execute his obligations, and developing a system that protects employees’ salaries.

Mr. Al Obad concluded his presentation by pointing out the international agreements that the UAE has signed with the International Labor Organization.

At the end of the event, Brigadier General Abdullah bin Sahoo Al Suwaidi and Mr. Mahir Al Obad answered the audience’s questions.

A unique and assured investment opportunity for ‘Social Justice’, because of its strong Legal back-up and Government support. “The execution of Judgments of the UAE Court is a part of ‘Indo-Gulf Reparation’ Movement”. Millions of Overseas Indians will be the beneficiaries of a ‘Mutual Reparation Mechanism’ if put into practical effect….